It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Living Shark Fossil Sighted

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

A species of shark rarely seen alive because its natural habitat is 600 metres (2,000 ft) or more under the sea was captured on film by staff at a Japanese marine park this week.




Source

So another underwater creature sighted that hasn't changed since it first evoled. The Coelacanth and this.
Ain't exactly the hot cousin of the shark family is it?
Still, Japan seem to be doing pretty darn good. A giant squid, now this!




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
That is awesome. I upset that it died. But that is a really neat looking shark, I hope the researchers can learn a lot from necrospy.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Does this remind anyone else of "Nessie."

This sighting could add some credence to the idea that Nessie is a "living fossil" itself, and now perhaps related to this creature.....



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Hey, nice find.

Did not know they existed.

Here is the Wiki on the beast.

It states they can grow as large as '2' meters.... 6-1/2 feet doesn't seem all the big to me.

As one of the comments on the link you provided said, it may have to do with the temperature changes being experienced in places such as Japan.

I wonder what we will see next.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Does this remind anyone else of "Nessie."

This sighting could add some credence to the idea that Nessie is a "living fossil" itself, and now perhaps related to this creature.....


My first thought was mermaid. A ugly one at that.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
i see the nessie thing but if it can only grow to 6ft and a bit then it sort of throws it out. UNLESS....... its a mutation of the species swimming about in loch ness????? oooooooo who knows.

anyway..... LOOK AT THOSE TEEETH !!!!! JESUS !!!!!

Remirah



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I saw it just today on TV... poor little thing...

Here's a video

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The head looks like a rattlesnake to me.

Well, not so much in the video, but that is one wierd looking fish. Certainly does look like the proverbial sea serpent.





[edit on 2007/1/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Jesus I would hate to run into that thing, creeps me out,lol. Sad how it died, but wow that is truely amazing, there must be all kinds of things in Japan's waters. Aren't they radioactive or something like that?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Makes you wonder if larger versions or offshoots aren't indeed responsible for at least SOME sea monster lore.... Amazing stuff... I just saw the vid on the news....weird lookin' fish....



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Did anyone else think the thing looked unhealthy to begin with? It certainly didn't move as gracefully as other sharks/fish/eels/ect.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peronemlin

I saw it just today on TV... poor little thing...

Here's a video

www.youtube.com...


Embed it!





Originally posted by Nicotine1982
Did anyone else think the thing looked unhealthy to begin with? It certainly didn't move as gracefully as other sharks/fish/eels/ect.


According to the YouTube page the shark died shortly after the vid was taken.


jra

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicotine1982
Did anyone else think the thing looked unhealthy to begin with? It certainly didn't move as gracefully as other sharks/fish/eels/ect.


It was sick. It's normally in waters at a depth of 600m - 1000m, but wandered up to shallower depths (due to it being sick and possibly confused) and then was put into the tank where they filmed it. And it died a few hours later.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I love it when they find animals like this - as said above, it just gives so much more support that other "cryptids" may be real. Interesting how it differs from the rest of the shark family - small dorsal fin, protruding gills and the serpentine body. Just reminds us that anything is possible and that not even Nature keeps to the "rules".


Edit: Sp.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I love this kind of discovery. The thing looks mean as hell.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
And if someone said they saw something like this and how wierd it was etc etc it would have been "blown" off as hog wash - hmmmm... aliens? wait till the Japs catch one of those and put it in a takn and film it - on second thoughts, they would probably sell it to china or something so they can eat it



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   


And if someone said they saw something like this and how wierd it was etc etc it would have been "blown" off as hog wash - hmmmm... aliens? wait till the Japs catch one of those and put it in a takn and film it - on second thoughts, they would probably sell it to china or something so they can eat it



Some people may find a remark like that offensive, so I suggest you rethink before absently posting.

I saw a video of the shark swimming on the news yesterday and the way it moves is more serpentine than shark. It was obviously lilted a bit due to its illness, but I got the impression a healthy one would have been amazingly graceful to watch.
The existence of this shark could possibly (going out on a limb here) add credence to the whole Megalodon debate. Another prehistoric shark, also thought extinct.

Do you think there's any chance the Japanese will clone the shark in order to study it?
Personally I believe it wandered up to the surface because of the rise in water temperature in that area. Its screwing with a whole lot of marine life.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
wow - that is a cool vid clip - its great to see such a poorly understood species alive , albeit in an unatural and , for it quite hostile environment

but having said that :

RANT MODE :

this fish is hardly a cryptid - or at least not what i call a cryptid .

ex]Frilled sharks appear regularly in the catches from bottom trawling, and when caught are used as food or for fishmeal.

it was only " discovered " in the mid 19th century - because that is when commercial deep see trawling with steam powered winches to draw up the heavy nets - and the manufactured cables to allow nets to reach down to the detpths was introduced .

lastly , the notion that the existance of a viable colony of such creatures in the pacific depths , for all intent an " open environment " promotes the possibility that a huge cryptid could remain hidden in a closed environment - like loch ness - is bloody rediculous .



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Its classed as a cryptid because the specimen that was recorded and recovered was a thought-to-be extinct SUBSPECIES of the frilled shark, not the actual shark itself.

If you compare pictures of both species you can see the differences...


Frilled Shark

Recovered Specimen



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Here is Wiki's definition of Cryptid


Cryptids are creatures presumed extinct or hypothetical species of creature known from anecdotal evidence and/or other evidence insufficient to prove their existence with scientific certainty. The slang term "cryptid" was first coined in 1983 by John Wall. A cryptid may also be known as an Unidentified Mysterious Animal (UMA). The study of cryptids is known as Cryptozoology.


In my mind, this could be interpeted many different ways. I somewhat agree with what Ape said, although with this creature never being seen alive does leave a little mystery.

I think as stated in the Wiki above, " presumed extinct " , could apply in this case as one would never really know if they have become extinct or not.

A lack of dead carcusus caught in Trawling nets, would not neccesarily be evidence of extinction, being this is the only time they are really observed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join